Wednesday, February 09, 2005

Posted here Wednesday, February 09, 2005 at 3:53:17 PM     on philanthropy, and a few shocking ideas. the secondary unplanned consequences of Lorge anoint of wealth.From Fred Turner. The special mandate of the philanthropic or voluntary gift economy. And it will suggest ways in which the artistic and literary culture can begin to celebrate and offer guidance to the philanthropic enterprise.   Estimates of the amount of wealth that will be inherited or given away in trusts and the like in the next few years range from ten to twenty trillion dollars, riches that will be provided as a gift, riches not earned, not acquired by conquest, nor legislatively appropriated. The amount over the next 55 years is estimated at between 41 and 136 trillion. This is an almost inconceivable sum—around seventeen thousand dollars for every man, woman, and child on the planet—and it will surely alter the world’s economy profoundly, loosening the tie between effortful production and personal wealth that has been so important a feature of capitalism.   Other periods of history give testimony about the benefits and also the great dangers of such large wealth transfers. In the last years of the Roman republic, a period of gigantic untaxed fortunes, gifts and bequests to the Roman people and its army by the great magnates—such as Sulla, Marius, Lucullus, Pompey, Julius Caesar, Octavius, Antony—were a crucial instrument of policy. The publication of a will before or after the donor’s death could and did alter the course of world history. The result was enormous wars, a flowering of cultural production, and an epochal change from republic to empire. The Black Death in Europe, combined with a ripening of technological development and a warming of the climate, created another huge wealth transfer, ushering in the Renaissance, the Reformation, and more large-scale wars. More modestly, but perhaps in the long run just as momentously, the vast generational wealth transfers that occurred in Europe through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries provided almost every novel, opera, and drama of the period with the mainspring of its plot—the will or entail that frustrates or liberates the lovers. The accumulated capital of the Industrial Revolution fell into the hands of a section of society that had tired of the process of money-making, while being kept from the aspiring classes that would have been happy to put it to use. ********

	Monday, February 07, 2005

Social Security Posted here Monday, February 07, 2005 at 9:24:38 PM       The amazing story now is social security. The discussion is getting very good. The best site to follow may be Brad Delong's http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/   He quotes around a lot, and gets flavor and details.   Josh Marshal has been doing an extraordinary job of embarrassing congress people who are wavering. To learn about congress this is a good opportunity - and about political courage and doggedness. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/   Chinese wisdom   Zhuangzi told this story to his disciples to make a point. Once a zookeeper said to his monkeys: "You'll get 3 bananas in the Morning and 4 in the afternoon." All monkeys are upset. "OK. How about 4 bananas in Morning and 3 in the afternoon?" Hearing this, the monkeys are content.   One should realize that sometimes a change in phrasing does not represent a real change.   Pasted from <http://www.chinapage.com/story/monkeyfeed.html> ********

	Monday, January 31, 2005

Posted here Monday, January 31, 2005 at 6:17:15 PM       Picked up from Kevin Drum   LESSONS OF HISTORY?....Tom Cleaver of Redress Press sends along this clip from the New York Times. The date is September 3, 1967: U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. ....A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February. The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.   I know, I know, this doesn't mean Iraq is Vietnam. But you have to admit, this story is pretty spooky.   Pasted from <http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_01/005556.php> Real interest now in the future of the Democratic party and the struggle over chairperson of the DNC. ********

	Sunday, January 30, 2005

Posted here Sunday, January 30, 2005 at 7:47:19 PM         Yesterday's before the election, a zogby poll. This poll is very good. It says that Iraqi's want the US out, they want a non-religious government, and they are interested in voting. The bad news is that the Shia's aare I being isolated. The other news of course is that the US really loses, unless we can reframe this as agood outcome, which I believe. Things have moved to the point wher Bush gets little credit, and that leaves us in the US with a major problem. What kind of a US do we want?   Zogby International did a poll of 805 Iraqis between January from January 19 to 23, 2005 in the cities of Baghdad, Hilla, Karbala and Kirkuk, as well as Diyala and Anbar provinces. Results: Sunni Arabs who say they will vote on Sunday: 9% Sunni Arabs who say they definitely will not vote on Sunday: 76% Shiites who say they likely or definitely will vote: 80% Kurds who say they likely or definitely will vote: 56% Sunni Arabs who want the US out of Iraq now or very soon: 82% Shiites who want the US out of Iraq now or very soon: 69% Sunni Arabs who believe US will hurt Iraq over next 5 years: 62% Shiites who believe US will hurt Iraq over next five years: 49% Shiites who want to hold elections on Jan. 30: 84% Kurds who want to hold elections on Jan. 30: 64% Sunni Arabs who want to postpone elections: 62% Sunni Arabs who consider guerrilla resistance against the Americans legitimate: 53% Iraqis who would support a religious government: 33%   Today, with the election behind us, except for the counting, Juan Cole as usual is on top of the implications.   I'm just appalled by the cheerleading tone of US news coverage of the so-called elections in Iraq on Sunday. I said on television last week that this event is a "political earthquake" and "a historical first step" for Iraq. It is an event of the utmost importance, for Iraq, the Middle East, and the world. All the boosterism has a kernel of truth to it, of course. Iraqis hadn't been able to choose their leaders at all in recent decades, even by some strange process where they chose unknown leaders. But this process is not a model for anything, and would not willingly be imitated by anyone else in the region. The 1997 elections in Iran were much more democratic, as were the 2002 elections in Bahrain and Pakistan. Moreover, as Swopa rightly reminds us all, the Bush administration opposed one-person, one-vote elections of this sort. First they were going to turn Iraq over to Chalabi within six months. Then Bremer was going to be MacArthur in Baghdad for years. Then on November 15, 2003, Bremer announced a plan to have council-based elections in May of 2004. The US and the UK had somehow massaged into being provincial and municipal governing councils, the members of which were pro-American. Bremer was going to restrict the electorate to this small, elite group.   Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani immediately gave a fatwa denouncing this plan and demanding free elections mandated by a UN Security Council resolution. Bush was reportedly "extremely offended" at these two demands and opposed Sistani. Bremer got his appointed Interim Governing Council to go along in fighting Sistani. Sistani then brought thousands of protesters into the streets in January of 2004, demanding free elections. Soon thereafter, Bush caved and gave the ayatollah everything he demanded. Except that he was apparently afraid that open, non-manipulated elections in Iraq might become a factor in the US presidential campaign, so he got the elections postponed to January 2005. This enormous delay allowed the country to fall into much worse chaos, and Sistani is still bitter that the Americans didn't hold the elections last May. The US objected that they couldn't use UN food ration cards for registration, as Sistani suggested. But in the end that is exactly what they did.   So if it had been up to Bush, Iraq would have been a soft dictatorship under Chalabi, or would have had stage-managed elections with an electorate consisting of a handful of pro-American notables. It was Sistani and the major Shiite parties that demanded free and open elections and a UNSC resolution. They did their job and got what they wanted. But the Americans have been unable to provide them the requisite security for truly aboveboard democratic elections.   With all the hoopla, it is easy to forget that this was an extremely troubling and flawed "election." Iraq is an armed camp. There were troops and security checkpoints everywhere. Vehicle traffic was banned. The measures were successful in cutting down on car bombings that could have done massive damage. But even these Draconian steps did not prevent widespread attacks, which is not actually good news. There is every reason to think that when the vehicle traffic starts up again, so will the guerrilla insurgency.   The Iraqis did not know the names of the candidates for whom they were supposedly voting. What kind of an election is anonymous! There were even some angry politicians late last week who found out they had been included on lists without their permission. Al-Zaman compared the election process to buying fruit wholesale and sight unseen. (This is the part of the process that I called a "joke," and I stand by that.)   This thing was more like a referendum than an election. It was a referendum on which major party list associated with which major leader would lead parliament. Many of the voters came out to cast their ballots in the belief that it was the only way to regain enough sovereignty to get American troops back out of their country. The new parliament is unlikely to make such a demand immediately, because its members will be afraid of being killed by the Baath military. One fears a certain amount of resentment among the electorate when this reticence becomes clear. Iraq now faces many key issues that could tear the country apart, from the issues of Kirkuk and Mosul to that of religious law. James Zogby on Wolf Blitzer wisely warned the US public against another "Mission Accomplished" moment. Things may gradually get better, but this flawed "election" isn't a Mardi Gras for Americans and they'll regret it if that is the way they treat it.     . ********

	Monday, January 24, 2005

Economy and scenarios, Bush trap. Posted here Monday, January 24, 2005 at 3:06:51 PM       Philanthropy.   An interesting time when there are so many initiatives on so many issues. Do these health initiatives strategically make sense? http://www.familiesusa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Health_Action_2005_Conference_Registration&;JServ   Is there an unmet need for frameworks for strategic thinking?   Note the complexity here: is it an attempt to shift fruit to genetically modified varieties, or simply a market domination decision? That eating fruit is on the rise is however a good sign.   Monsanto to Buy Seed Company for $1 Bln January 24, 2005 05:46 PM ET KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Reuters) - Agriculture products company Monsanto Co. on Monday said it will buy Seminis Inc., the world's largest commercial fruit and vegetable seed company, for at least $1 billion from a private equity firm to capitalize on the trend toward healthier eating.    More...   More debt, or more wealth?   American Express Profits Rise 17 Pct January 24, 2005 04:44 PM ET NEW YORK (Reuters) - American Express Co. said on Monday fourth-quarter profits rose 17 percent, driven by increased use of its credit cards and strong travel-related sales.    More...   Nations Ranked as Protectors of the Environment By FELICITY BARRINGER. That Davos is doing this means pressure on policy makers in the US.   http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/24/science/24enviro.html?oref=login&;th     WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 - Countries from Northern and Central Europe and South America dominated the top spots in the 2005 index of environmental sustainability, which ranks nations on their success at such tasks as maintaining or improving air and water quality, maximizing biodiversity and cooperating with other countries on environmental problems.   Finland, Norway and Uruguay held the top three spots in the ranking, prepared by researchers at Yale and Columbia Universities. The United States ranked 45th of the 146 countries studied, behind such countries as Japan, Botswana and the tiny Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan, and most of Western Europe.   The lowest-ranking country was North Korea. Among those near the bottom were Haiti, Taiwan, Iraq and Kuwait.   The index is the second produced in collaboration with the World Economic Forum, which meets in Davos, Switzerland, this week. The first complete index, in 2002, produced outrage and soul-searching in lower-ranking countries like Belgium and South Korea, said Daniel C. Esty, the director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy and an author of the report.   The report is based on 75 measures, including the rate at which children die from respiratory diseases, fertility rates, water quality, overfishing, emission of heat-trapping gases and the export of sodium dioxide, a crucial component of acid rain.   In its opening chapter, the Environmental Sustainability Index report said: "Although imperfect, the E.S.I. helps to fill a long-existing gap in environmental performance evaluation. It offers a small step toward a more vigorous and quantitative approach to environmental decision making."   The report also cited a statistically significant correlation between high-ranking countries and countries with open political systems and effective governments.   The report's flaws stem largely from inadequate data, Mr. Esty said, adding that the ranking system is at best approximate, because some individual scores had to be imputed in many cases. But he said that data might improve in coming years.   He also said a system that rated Russia, whose populated western regions have undergone extraordinary environmental degradation, as having greater environmental sustainability than the United States had inherent weaknesses.   At 33, Russia's ranking, Mr. Esty said, is in large part a consequence of the country's vast size. While it "has terrible pollution problems" in the western industrial heartland, he said, its millions of unsettled or sparsely settled acres of Asian taiga mean "it has vast, untrammeled resources and more clean water than anywhere in the world." So, he added, "on average, Russia ends up looking better than it does to someone who lives in western Russia."   Because such differences make many countries inherently difficult to compare, he said, this report also analyzed seven clusters of similar countries; in this analysis, the United States ranked slightly below the halfway point among 24 members of the Organization of American States.   But further on scenarios of development, an interesting scenario report from the "National Intelligence Council". This is a CIA effort, and amazingly public. I was a participant in the creation of a previous set, in about 1998, called futures 2015.  I remember at the meeting, listening to a blue jacket tan pants rep tie fellow going on about the need to "take out the terrorists", and I finally took the floor and said "You can either be an architect or a fireman." What is striking is the tiny place in this new set, but a place, for attitudes: in this case, tradtionals vs post modernism as a world wide factor in future possibilities.   At http://www.ifs.du.edu/ifs.aspx   The scenarios are well developed and here is the table of contents for them. At http://www.futurebrief.com/project2020.pdf   The Contradictions of Globalization An Expanding and Integrating Global Economy The Technology Revolution Lingering Social Inequalities Fictional Scenario: Davos World Rising Powers: The Changing Geopolitical Landscape Rising Asia Other Rising States? The “Aging” Powers Growing Demands for Energy US Unipolarity—How Long Can It Last? Fictional Scenario: Pax Americana New Challenges to Governance Halting Progress on Democratization Identity Politics Fictional Scenario: A New Caliphate Pervasive Insecurity Transmuting International Terrorism Intensifying Internal Conflicts Rising Powers: Tinder for Conflict? The WMD Factor Fictional Scenario: Cycle of Fear   Note that the alternatives are negative,  or market globalization. There is no other alternative considered. I recommend some study of this document.   Some thoughts on Bush and the Inaugural I wrote over the weekend.   Bush is a small man with a vision of being a Churchill or a Lincoln. But he fails to note that those strong leaders led on a crucial issue of historical significance and recognized as such by their contemporaries. Bush picks an issue with a schoolboy understanding, like a baseball team or oil company to invert in. A small staff left our from Reagan and Bush I provided him with military options, and 9/11, a crucial moment requiring great wisdom for a response, got his self-righteous bully judgment that we were at war rather than in the midst of a great world wide restlessness over deeper issues. The US. is at risk of letting itself get defined in world perception as a bully with the goal of being an arm of the tragically situated Israel, thus letting us be defined very narrowly  rather than in the broad and quiet ways appropriate to great power just at the moment in history we needed to show our capacity for rich and complex understanding and Subtly of nuanced action that fits the "reality party:  The one justification for Bush's approach is important to consider:  that governance has become increasingly difficult in a crowded technical age, and a simple posture is the only way to hold the country and the world together. Even if this is the intent, the way Bush is going about it is not simple, but divisive, throughout the world and within US national politics.   We are all in this trap. He is used by his own character, his party, his supporters, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, the fundamentalists, and there seeking short term financed gain in difficult economic times. And we are also abused by these intersections of ideology, posturing, manipulators and interests that are woven together by expediency in his Presidency.  His cookie cutter "I've read Churchill," leadership, merged with the power and wealth of the county, is carrying us on a powerful stream unleashed by his rather impoverished decisions, amidst an absence of a more realistic assessment, that has eaten away American "soft capital'; our perceived goodness and idealisms. The very deep significance for all of as in the word "freedom" is almost lost in the avalanche of its perverted use for private property rather than for individuals to be free from tyranny and fear at home so they can reason and have faith in dialog, .   Freedom for property and freedom for people are not the same. Bush is forcing them farther apart in his claim to be ready to fight one and all in his quest for "freedom and democracy" which is Bush double speak for a managed media market corporatist world of his kind of "globalization."   Analysis here is not made easy by the prevailing set of ideas that demand assent to the conclusion that under current trends everyone is doing better, both in the US and everywhere else, economically and politically. Part of the psychic force that supports this policy generating conclusion is that it is so hard to imagine a plausible alternative world politics. The 20th. century was filed with attempts to Sober the problem of wealth, power, status and governance. The left and right totalitarian more went were powerful alternator, and both Sides attracted Various kinds of idealism, but they led to terrible wars. Our leaders took us there and current ^ leaders are not looking the lessons learned. "Don't be an appeaser" is the standard the away. the problems of nations, markets, ambitions and fears are not explored. Parallels with Mussolini seem unexplored for lessons. The same forces that dominated the 20th Century and created its wars are still the same forces that are alive and well and needing very enlightened management, if we are of prevent yet another. Some people are already calling for a new world war but I think none are who prefer earth now. Those who prefer war or seek its energy are dead to other dimensions of human aliveness. (see Podhoretz In Commentary http://www.commentarymagazine.com/special/A11902025_1.html ) ********

	Friday, January 21, 2005

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Redford opens Sundance festival Posted here Friday, January 21, 2005 at 11:08:29 AM     My son, Seth Carmichael, is at Sundance for the fourth year, so it gives me an opportunity to take the film world a bit more seriously. He co-produced last year's drama of social relevance award Brother to Brother http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/awards/sundance/reviews_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2060039   "Festival founder Redford said he believed that people thought the times were "chaotic" or "on course" depending on their political beliefs. "I'd like to think of this festival as a festival of dissent, and I'd like to celebrate that," he said." ********

Bush speech - PEGGY NOONAN Posted here Friday, January 21, 2005 at 10:36:56 AM     While mainstream commentary was positive about the speeCh, The inauguration: the speech: policy and analysis: If there has ever been a speech that produced so much unanimity of analysis, we ain't seen it. Almost without exception, the entire punditocracy thinks: 1. The speech was well written and solidly delivered. 2. The goal of freedom around the world is worthy but tough to achieve. 3. Many of America's current bilateral relationships are not consistent with the expanded Bush Doctrine. 4. History will judge deeds more than words. 5. Mrs. Bush is, uhm, smokin!!!! (That has nothing to do with the speech, but everyone is talking about it . . . ) "His tone was proud, unapologetic, even defiant, and his emphasis on foreign policy muffled his outline of the domestic agenda that he and his aides have said is so important to the success of his second term," the aforementioned Mr. Purdum penned. LINK http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238 His closest friends were not. Take These three. Peggy Noonan "The inaugural address itself was startling. It left me with a bad feeling, and reluctant dislike. Rhetorically, it veered from high-class boilerplate to strong and simple sentences, but it was not pedestrian. George W. Bush's second inaugural will no doubt prove historic because it carried a punch, asserting an agenda so sweeping that an observer quipped that by the end he would not have been surprised if the president had announced we were going to colonize Mars. " And Bob Novak Pasted from <http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-novak21.html> The answer is given by one Bush adviser by pointing to that second Lincoln inaugural. With the end of the Civil War in sight, Lincoln did not deal with the details of either military victory or Southern Reconstruction. Instead, he offered broad concepts of binding up the nation's wounds. As a result, that Lincoln speech is a rare inaugural address that has become a historical document. 3 major defects Bush tried the same thing, with a denunciation of the countries aligned against the United States in the war on terror. He expanded the protection of U.S. citizens to "all the inhabitants" of the world, promising: "We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." But the very nature of Bush's address contains three major defects concerning his second term. *First, Bush is proposing a major domestic reform for his second term that he gave no boost whatever in his speech Thursday. *Second, Bush's inflexible call for promoting democracy everywhere prompts questions about what Bush will do to undemocratic regimes with whom he now maintains various levels of friendly bilateral relations -- led off by China, Pakistan and Egypt. *Third, what about Iraq? Does the United States guaranteeing democracy there promise a long U.S. military commitment? This is perhaps the major of all issues for Americans. Reality of divided nation It will take years to determine whether Bush's oratory Thursday can achieve historical status. But the president unmistakably sent the message that the spread of democracy takes precedence over any shopping list of domestic wishes. To some orthodox conservatives, Bush's message sounded too much like Woodrow Wilson or neo-conservative diehards. Bush pleased his conservative base, angered his liberal foes and annoyed the national news media by failing to promise a "kinder, gentler" presidency (his father's phrase) to try to heal the nation's wounds. As Democratic senators were belaboring his Cabinet nominees this week, claims of being a national unifier would have signaled weakness by Bush. Rather, the inauguration brought home the reality of a divided nation. Loyal Republicans and protesters, both of whom poured into the capital, confronted each other. For Bush to address this problem by promising more civil behavior would have seemed either provocative or weak, depending on his tone. In the final analysis, it was determined by Bush not to attempt conciliation. The main message carried away from his second inaugural address would be that he is a muscular, global salesman of democracy. It remains to be seen whether the American people think that is in their best interests. And "William Niskanen, chairman of the Cato Institute, criticized Mr. Bush's call for a more activist military role in the world as 'dangerous, eloquent nonsense,' rejecting the implication in the president's remarks 'that anyone's lack of liberty threatens us,"" writes Don Lambro in the Washington Times. LINK ********

	Thursday, January 20, 2005

outsourcing innovation Posted here Thursday, January 20, 2005 at 3:29:32 PM     Tech innovation future http://www.cxo.com/go/index.html?ID=1615&;PMID=2389567&s=1&f=1 Innovation Ships Out U.S. computer makers such as Dell, Motorola and HP are outsourcing not just the manufacture but the design of new products to offshore companies. Could this be the end of America's innovative edge in electronics? BY CHRISTOPHER KOCH Buy a laptop anywhere in the world and there is a one-in-four chance that T.J. Fang will process the order. You'll just never know it. ********

Does tsunami relief dry up other giving? - slate Posted here Thursday, January 20, 2005 at 3:24:14 PM     System thinking, we need to learn.. President Bush in early January proclaimed: "The greatest source of America's generosity is not our government; it's the good heart of the American people." He's right. So far, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, private relief charities have raised more than $480 million for tsunami recovery efforts, far more than the $350 million committed by the government. These impressive figures have been accompanied by a huge and unseemly amount of self-congratulation. It's especially unseemly in the case of the government contributions because the federal money is most likely coming out of existing aid budgets--any new money for reconstruction in Sri Lanka and Indonesia will likely mean less money for sub-Saharan Africa. Can the same be said about private donations? Will the private tsunami relief dry up other charitable giving? History and anecdote suggests it will. Crain's New York Business this week had a fine piece about how five New York nonprofits working in fields such as homelessness and hunger have seen their direct-mail donations fall off a cliff in recent weeks. "Some groups such as Bailey House, which helps homeless people who have AIDS, have even started receiving letters from longtime donors warning that this year's gifts are being redirected to the tsunami relief effort," writes reporter Miriam Kreinin Souccar. The New Yorker's "Talk of the Town" mentions that at Brooklyn prep school Packer Collegiate, a "fifth-grade bake sale, which had originally been intended to benefit a less fortunate school in Tanzania, was jointly dedicated to Tanzania and relief for tsunami victims." ********

New yorker on Alawi Posted here Thursday, January 20, 2005 at 3:09:01 PM     Five centuries? no wonderthis is so intense. The elections were meant to solidify a spirit of Iraqi national unity, but the upcoming vote has only increased the tensions among the country’s ethnic groups. The removal of Saddam abruptly disempowered Iraq’s Sunni minority, which had ruled Iraq for nearly five centuries. The resulting Sunni hostility toward American occupation forces—and their fears of being subjugated by Iraq’s Shiite majority—has inflamed the insurgency. Many Sunnis fear that Shiite parties will win the elections and install an Islamic theocracy closely linked to Iran’s. Some Sunni leaders have called for a boycott of the elections. ********

Rice Doublespeak at Senate Posted here Thursday, January 20, 2005 at 12:50:03 PM     Rice and Iran, from Juan Cole Rice responded concerning Iran that it was hard to have an engagement with a country that wanted to see Israel destroyed. It is such a simple-minded thing to say. Uh, let me see. In the 1980s wasn't it the Khomeini regime that sold Israel petroleum in exchange for spare parts for its American weaponry? Wasn't it the Israelis who put Reagan up to the Iran-Contra scandal by suggesting that the US ship TOWs to Iran in return for an end to the Lebanese hostage crisis? Even when it was more radical, and despite all the rhetoric, Iran was willing to deal with Israel in ways that helped the latter enormously. It is true that some Iranian leaders, like Rafsanjani, say frightening things about Israel. But Rafsanjani has no executive power, and when he was president he didn't actually act on such sentiments. The point of engaging the Iranian regime would be to gradually ween it away from such extremism. Iran hasn't launched any aggressive wars in the region, or threatened to use weapons of mass destruction, unlke some other countries (the US had full diplomatic relations with Iraq in the 1980s at a time when it had done both of these things.) I am very uncomfortable in having US national security policy and diplomacy dictated by how politicians in a country talk about our non-Nato allies (with whom, by the way, we do not even have a mutual defense pact). And I am very suspicious that now that Iraq is a basket case, all of a sudden Ariel Sharon is calling on the US to attack Iran. If Rice is going to be a successful Secretary of State, she simply has to get back control of US foreign policy from the Likudniks in the Bush administration. ********

Cole on Iran Posted here Thursday, January 20, 2005 at 12:04:27 PM     As you may recall for a year I have been saying the real focus of Bushco is on the broader nuclear strategic issues, and that the admin would go after Iran. The logic is filling in. " The Pentagon and also Pakistan are denying the report heatedly. But it makes sense. Iran has formed a close military alliance with India, Pakistan's chief rival in South Asia, and Iran has come out on top in the new Afghanistan, with Tajik and Hazarah allies displacing the largely Pushtun, Pakistan-oriented Taliban. And Pakistan has reason not to want Iran to get nukes, thus surrounding Pakistan with nuclear powers on both the east and the south. So Pakistan has every reason to cooperate with the US against Iran. "   and for Hersh http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact ********

when a chair is rented.. adventures in the new economy Posted here Thursday, January 20, 2005 at 10:44:55 AM     The replacement of property by lease hods undermines the independence Locke wanted private property to suppot. In jest,which means seriously, "Cyborg researcher Steve Mann has produced a piece of conceptual art called "License to seat." It's a chair with "magnetic stripe card reader and spikes that retract when a seating license is downloaded from a license server in response to input from the card reader incoroprated into the chair. The license server is in the 19 inch relay rack behind the Internet Chair" The piece makes a point about the rentware world we're fast approaching, where individuals are stuck in a kind of feudal relationship with commercial entities, who reach into our homes and track and bill us for the use of our household goods. Link (Thanks, Ethan!) " ********

Rubin on Japan and social security Posted here Thursday, January 20, 2005 at 7:05:40 AM     The social security debate may be a distraction. The best analysisI have read is that it is an effort to set up a difference beteween dems and repubicans in 2006/08. But the following by Ex Clinton Sec of treasury Bob Rubin makes another good point. "Rubin adds that the stock market is hardly a sure bet. "You are not making social security more secure by subjecting people's retirement to equity risk. If you look at the Nikkei in Japan you get a sense of what can happen." " and Even private-accounts-meister Newt Gingrich bagging on the crisis claim? "The combination of higher birth rates and more immigration makes the United States the healthiest of developed nations. This is not a crisis," says the former Speaker, according to Bloomberg.... ********